IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
Gyano & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
FAO-5842 of 2014
Decided On : 23-11-2023
JUDGMENT
Mr. Karamjit Singh, J.
This appeal has been filed by the appellants against judgment dated 24.1.2014 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short, "the Tribunal") whereby the claim application filed by the appellants for grant of compensation was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case of the appellants in nutshell are that appellant No.1 is widow while appellants No.2 to 4 are sons of deceased- Bishamber; that on 15.7.2010, deceased-Bishamber had gone to Ballabgarh for purchase of buffaloes. On the next day, the deceased went to village Nekpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh to meet his cousin Bedan and thereafter, the deceased along with Bedan reached New Town, Faridabad Railway Station to board a train to go to Palwal to meet his other relations. The deceased purchased train ticket and boarded EMU Train No. SNP 4. There was heavy rush in the train and during the said journey, the deceased fell from the running train just near Ballabgarh Railway Station and sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. On receiving the information, the officials of GRP inspected the spot and conducted inquest proceedings and the post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 17.7.2010. Later on, the appellants came to know about the said incident on 24.7.2010 and appellant No.2 went to Police Station GRP Faridabad and they identified the dead body from the photographs to be that of Bishamber. However, the train ticket was misplaced at the time of the aforesaid untoward incident.
3. The claim petition was contested by the respondent by filing written statement wherein it was pleaded that no such untoward incident had taken place as has been alleged by the appellants. It was further pleaded that in the absence of any travelling ticket, the deceased could not be termed as a bonafide passenger. The other averments of the claim application were denied and it was pleaded that the claim sought by the appellants be dismissed.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
5. Appellant No.2-Kiran Pal appeared in the witness box as AW1 and also examined AW2 Bedan. The appellants also placed on record inquest report dated 16.7.2010 Ex.A1, copy of station memo dated 16.7.2010 Ex.A2, death report dated 16.7.2010 Ex.A3, brief history of the case prepared by GRP with regard to site plan and photographs Ex.A5 and Ex.A6, the application moved by GRP, Faridabad with request for post- mortem examination Ex.A7, post mortem report dated 17.7.2010 Ex.A8, receipt regarding handing over of the dead body Ex.A10, request dated 19.7.2010 made by GRP, Faridabad to Municipal Corporation to perform last rites of the dead body Ex.A11.
6. On the other hand, the respondents examined RW1-O.V.Singh, Dy. SS/Ballabgarh, who at the relevant time, was Station Master, Ballabgarh. The respondent also filed report of DRM.
7. After hearing counsel for the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants vide impugned order and while doing so, gave findings with regard to issues No.1 and 2 against the appellants. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
8. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
9. Counsel for the appellants has contended that from the perusal of testimony of AW1 and AW2 coupled with inquest report, post mortem report and the report of DRM, it stands proved that on the day of incident i.e. 16.7.2010, the deceased boarded a train from New Town, Faridabad Railway Station to go to Palwal after purchasing a travelling ticket and the same was lost at the time of the incident. He has further contended that during train journey from New Town, Faridabad Railway Station to Palwal, the deceased fell from a running train and di
Absence of a train ticket does not negate a claim for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act if the deceased is proven to be a bona fide passenger.
The absence of a train ticket does not negate the status of a deceased as a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act, as the burden of proof can shift based on circumstantial evidence.
Strict liability applies in railway accident claims; proof of ticket not mandatory if other evidence supports passenger status.
The absence of a railway ticket does not negate a claim of being a bonafide passenger; the burden of proof shifts to the Railways once the claimant provides relevant evidence.
The absence of a ticket does not negate the status of a bona fide passenger, and initial burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish the passenger status, which the court confirmed through exam....
The court ruled that an accidental falling of a bona fide passenger from a train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, mandating strict liability for compensation, irrespective o....
The burden of proof lies on the Railway Administration to establish the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger, and the absence of a ticket does not necessarily negate this claim.
The Court affirmed that a passenger's accidental fall from a moving train constitutes an 'untoward incident', ensuring compensation under the no-fault principle without regard to negligence.
Point of Law : Mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.